Last Updated on September 22, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.In applications nos. 76701/17 and 21796/21, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KRYZHANOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 16218/17 and 4 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kryzhanovskyyand Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.In applications nos. 76701/17 and 21796/21, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
8. In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011) and Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it and the Government’s objection as to the application of the six-month rule in application no. 21796/21, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility (see, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 122-33, 22 May 2012, on application of the six-month rule for multiple consecutive periods of detention for the purpose of examination of Article 5 § 3 complaints), and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In applications nos. 76701/17 and 21796/21, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Nechayv. Ukraine,(no. 15360/10, 1July 2021).
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ignatov, cited above, § 57), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy Registrar President
_____________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
| No. | Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Period of detention | Length of detention | Specific defects | House arrest | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1] |
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2] |
| 1. | 16218/17 17/02/2017 |
Oleksandr PetrovychKRYZHANOVSKYY 1962 |
Shaposhnyk Roman Fedorovych Kremenchuk |
03/09/2014 pending |
More than 7 years | use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention | 12/07/2017 -20/07/2017 | 3,000 | 250 | |
| 2. | 76701/17 27/10/2017 |
Andriy Oleksandrovych ROMANYUK 1998 |
Samarets Alina Mykolayivna Kyiv |
04/05/2015 to 26/02/2019 |
3 years and 9 months and 23 days | collective detention orders;failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding | Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings – 4/05/20015 – pending, 2 levels of jurisdiction, Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings |
3,100 | 250 | |
| 3. | 43010/20 18/09/2020 |
Maksym Ruslanovych YURCHENKO 2001 |
RomanyukValeriy Illich Odesa |
18/03/2019 to 12/08/2021 |
2 years and 4 months and 26 days | fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint | 1,500 | 250 | ||
| 4. | 19853/21 07/04/2021 |
Dmytro Yuriyovych NAZAROV 1980 |
BakhovskyyMykhayloMykhaylovych Glyboke |
21/11/2019 pending |
More than 2 years | failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; relying on reasoning in previous decision on extension of detention without actual analysis of the situation at the material time |
1,600 | 250 | ||
| 5. | 21796/21 07/04/2021 |
VitaliySergiyovych KIRIK 1986 |
Sydorchuk Kateryna Anatoliyivna Mykolayiv |
16/11/2010 to 09/02/2012 22/05/2012 to 06/03/2014 28/01/2016 to 01/06/2018 22/11/2019 pending |
1 year and 2 months and 25 days 1 year and 9 months and 13 days 2 years and 4 months and 5 days More than 2 years |
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint | Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings – 16/11/2010 – pending, 3 levels of jurisdiction, Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings |
3,900 | 250 |
[1]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply